Will conservatives embrace a consumption tax?

Headlines over the past couple of weeks have been dominated by reactions to President Obama’s new proposal for corporate tax reform. The optimism stems from the realization that practically all the major plans by Democrats and Republicans would move the U.S. tax code in the direction of a territorial-based system (in which a corporation is taxed on domestic, not foreign, income). Moreover, these plans all accept the premise that to make the U.S. code more competitive globally, the tax base must be broadened, and that means cutting deductions and preferences in exchange for lowering the top-line rate (i.e., down to between 25 percent and 28 percent from today’s 35 percent rate).

Even with this apparent consensus, however, it seems inevitable that actual reform will not occur until 2013. Perhaps more important, the way these issues play out in the coming months could very well shift the reform discussion from how to tax income to how to tax consumption for both individuals and corporations. Here are three developments to watch.

The politics require more “tax winners.” To get the corporate tax rate down to the new target range, Congress might have to cut both accelerated depreciation and the expensing of research and development. The difficult truth is that any revenue-neutral tax reform proposal would likely create as many (and maybe even more) losers than winners. In essence, a rate reduction to 28 percent might help a few industries, but slashing the deductions for capital spending or investment could end up raising the effective tax rate for even more companies. The net effect could be a slightly smaller economy relative to its full potential, as new investment and the growth of the available capital stock could be restrained. In an effort to broaden the coalition and create more winners, Congress will probably have to consider cutting the top rate even further, then redefining what’s actually counted as corporate income.

The window is closing for piecemeal tax reform. The politics of trying to get a “win” by tackling just the corporate side of the code will fade — once again — as everyone begins to realize just how intertwined the individual tax system is with its corporate counterpart. The government’s share of corporate revenues comes from dollars that would have otherwise gone to one of the following: shareholders, management, suppliers, employees or customers. This Econ 101 point is perhaps best reflected by Greg Mankiw’s argument that “a corporation is not really a taxpayer at all. It is more like a tax collector.” The implication is that the individual tax code is fundamentally linked to the corporate side, especially if one prioritizes economic growth and the design of an efficient tax collection regime. After all, corporate tax revenue is only the third-largest source for the federal government (around 2 percent of GDP), behind the individual income tax (roughly 8 percent of GDP) and the payroll tax (which was about 6.5 percent back in 2006, before the crisis and the temporary rate cuts that were subsequently used for stimulus). A related point is that since the last tax overhaul in 1986, there has been a tremendous increase in the utilization of pass-through entities (i.e., LLCs and partnerships). Today, the U.S. has one of the world’s largest non-corporate sectors, with pass-through entities in recent years accounting for around 40 percent of total business net income.

Taxing savings and investment. The 2012 election is shaping up to mirror many aspects of the tax debate from 2003-2004. In 2003, President Bush advocated making dividends tax exempt if they were paid out of income that had already been taxed once at the corporate level. The law Congress ultimately passed brought the dividend rate down to 15 percent (the same rate as for capital gains). With personal tax rates on both forms of after-tax corporate income set at the same rate, a company could prioritize its business plan over tax management when deciding whether to retain or reinvest profits, distribute money as dividends, or pursue a stock buy-back. The arguments in favor of lower tax rates on capital generally follow the logic that the double (or higher) tax ends up distorting various investment- or savings-related decisions. From an economic-efficiency perspective, individuals and businesses should be encouraged to build resources and then be left to make the decision on their own whether to deploy their capital so as to maximize productivity and wage growth. Under the current tax regime, the government effectively has its foot on the scale by providing preferences for certain industries and biasing an investor’s decision-making process. (See an op-ed by Greg Mankiw for more.) The counterarguments are usually focused on issues of fairness. Critics are right to point out that the rich (and middle class) are initially the largest beneficiaries of low taxes on investment and savings, but this is because generally the poor don’t own equities that can appreciate or issue dividends. In part at least, this is why the 2004 Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, decided to run on a platform that included repeal of the lower tax rate for dividends.

Fast-forward to today, when President Obama’s new proposals and rhetoric are laying the groundwork for a return to ’04 themes. From 2009 to 2011, President Obama advocated raising the tax rate on dividends from 15 percent to 20 percent. This February, the President decided to break firmly from his previous and more moderate position, proposing to tax dividends back at the personal income tax rate of 39.6 percent. Once you add in the phaseout for deductions and exemptions, and the surcharge from the big health law, the total personal rate settles in at 44.8 percent. If the corporate rate stays at 35 percent for next year, this means the total tax on earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1 percent. The bottom-line is that a major theme of the general election will be how best to tax savings and investment while balancing fairness and economic growth. (For more on capital gains, go here.)

When taken together, these three issues are set to shift the tax debate toward alternative proposals that rely on taxing consumption. The pivot away from discussing taxes on income and toward consumption is a logical extension of the current corporate tax debate. The more you cut back deductions and broaden the base, the more the current corporate tax regime will resemble a consumption tax. In many respects, a value-added tax (VAT) is the same as a corporate tax where the only allowable deduction is for the cost of inputs (i.e., materials for production or manufacturing). Put another way, corporations are taxed on sales minus deductions today. If most or all deductions are eliminated, then just sales are left. At the risk of oversimplifying, all that really separates the corporate income tax from a sales tax are the current deductions and credits.

There is already a champion for a business consumption tax (BCT) in the House. While most have forgotten, Rep. Paul Ryan proposed replacing the entire corporate tax code with a BCT in his Roadmap for America’s Future. Ryan’s version would have businesses determine their tax liability by subtracting total purchases from total sales. The BCT is then applied to the net receipts figure, which is also a way of expressing the added value contributed by the company.

As 2012 unfolds, look for conservatives to start wrestling with the pros and cons of a business consumption tax. While some conservatives are in favor of a flat tax on the individual side, others remain skeptical of relying on any VAT-like tax regime if that means it will then be easier for the government to raise revenue in the future to support a larger (and growing) government footprint. This discussion could lay the groundwork for a broader negotiation on consumption taxes in 2013, one that also covers the individual side of the tax code. (See David Bradford’s on the “X Tax”.)

This is a debate worth having. And Rep. Paul Ryan is set to lead (just as he has on Medicare) on designing a tax system that allows the economy to allocate resources efficiently and that isn’t biased against the future by discouraging savings, investment and economic growth.

PHOTO: The hand of a broker is seen next to a calculator at Multiva Bank in Mexico City, August 9, 2011. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso

(1) Your statement that, “if the corporate rate stays at 35 percent for next year, this means the total tax on earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1 percent” is incorrect.

These two taxes are NOT additive.

There is NO such thing as double taxation on corporate taxes. The corporation pays taxes on profits, while the investor pays taxes on dividends. They are NOT the same thing at all.

A corporation’s dividend policy is determined by a lot of factors, with tax levels being only one of them.

(2) Your statement that “The pivot away from discussing taxes on income and toward consumption is a logical extension of the current corporate tax debate. The more you cut back deductions and broaden the base, the more the current corporate tax regime will resemble a consumption tax. In many respects, a value-added tax (VAT) is the same as a corporate tax where the only allowable deduction is for the cost of inputs (i.e., materials for production or manufacturing). Put another way, corporations are taxed on sales minus deductions today. If most or all deductions are eliminated, then just sales are left. At the risk of oversimplifying, all that really separates the corporate income tax from a sales tax are the current deductions and credits.”

This is worthless garbage. Perhaps you should not have tried to “simplify” because you obviously do not understand what you are talking about in terms of consumption taxes or VAT, since neither remotely resembles the present system of corporate taxation.

A consumption tax (i.e. a federal sales tax) would seriously inhibit US economic growth by artificially driving prices up, perhaps in a weakened economy such as ours, it might be enough to cause it to collapse.

(From Wikipedia) A value added tax or value-added tax (VAT) is a form of consumption tax. From the perspective of the buyer, it is a tax on the purchase price. From that of the seller, it is a tax only on the “value added” to a product, material or service, from an accounting point of view, by this stage of its manufacture or distribution. The manufacturer remits to the government the difference between these two amounts, and retains the rest for themselves to offset the taxes they had previously paid on the inputs.

The “value added” to a product by a business is the sale price charged to its customer, minus the cost of materials and other taxable inputs. A VAT is like a sales tax in that ultimately only the end consumer is taxed. It differs from the sales tax in that, with the latter, the tax is collected and remitted to the government only once, at the point of purchase by the end consumer. With the VAT, collections, remittances to the government, and credits for taxes already paid occur each time a business in the supply chain purchases products.”

Essentially, the difference between a consumption/sales tax and a VAT is that of the difference between charging simple interest and compound interest on a loan.

It seems that every bit of tax “reform” means increasing the tax load of the median American household while decreasing the load on both organizations of all kinds and the wealthiest, most powerful people in America. That is what it has always meant.

The only thing that trickles down is excrement.

Why does no one discuss removing the “home mortgage deduction” from yachts, second houses, vacation houses, motor homes (as a second residence)? We cut Food Stamps for the poor and leave these things in place? And deductions for personal use of corporate owned aircraft? “Deferred income” and “carried interest”? And we cut Medicare? We “cannot afford” Social Security? But we cannot afford to stop charging for what “we” have no intention of providing?

Tax reform means moving the percentage of total Federal taxation as a percentage of income up as income increases. Who cares if the rich leave? Good riddance unless we let them meddle in our politics from their new homes in enlightened Paraguay. Tax benefits ought to be directly tied to the employment of American citizens. The fee for H1B visas ought to be multiplied by 10. A penalty equal to 20 years of pay should be levied on every company who brings in an H1B worker who then stays. It should not be deductible.

Stop foreign military involvement now. Deport foreigners, including ones with US “citizenship”, who meddle in US domestic politics without renouncing ties to their home countries. Ban foreign money payments to US office holders and seekers altogether. Stop the corruption. Educate our children. Feed our poor. Employ our citizens and stop being friendly with those who will not. Force foreign government debt holders to take the same percentage principle cuts as Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries.

Unlike @Gordon2352 I won’t attempt to count the serious issues with this article. I will agree that their are at least two though. The most obvious of these errors is the one pointed out above regarding the statement that if “the total personal rate settles in at 44.8 percent. If the corporate rate stays at 35 percent for next year, this means the total tax on earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1 percent.” What’s all the more amazing is that this assumption (which is stated as a cold hard fact) follows the generally accepted assumption (by nearly all economists) that “The government’s share of corporate revenues comes from dollars that would have otherwise gone to one of the following: shareholders, management, suppliers, employees or customers. This Econ 101 point is perhaps best reflected by Greg Mankiw’s argument that “a corporation is not really a taxpayer at all. It is more like a tax collector.”” What is also accepted by nearly all economists is that the burden is not shared equally amongst those groups. In fact, in the very article which you reference, Mankiw cites a study which claims that “domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden.” And in another recent paper from the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank that has the decency and honesty to recognize itself as one) Aparna Mathur writes that “Using data on more than 100 countries, we found that higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. In fact, workers shoulder a much larger share of the corporate tax burden (more than 100 percent) than had previously been assumed.” Yet, despite all of this you have single handedly determined that 100% of the 35% top nominal corporate tax rate (which essentially no corporation actually pays) is passed through directly to shareholders in the form of reduced dividends. The worst part though is that you state this 64.1% tax rate as fact without even bothering to mention the absurdly unorthodox assumptions you used to derive it. This is a blatantly obvious attempt to raise the hackles of your faithful followers by throwing around these ridiculously inflated, fabricated tax figures and hoping they stick. All this from the managing director of a supposed “nonpartisan policy-research institute” whose recent writing includes an article which complains in the title that “Pro-Tax Forces Sow Confusion Regarding the Top 1%” (which, BTW, conclusively knocks down the most pathetic strawman I’ve ever seen, and actually seems to go out of it’s way to avoid saying anything meaningful in the process). It would appear that you know a bit about sowing confusion yourself, Mr. Papagianis. Nonpartisan indeed.